The judgment establishes the principle that when an offence is proved under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment and fine as prescribed by the Act, with special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Kathuria, J. - Durga, petitioner-accused has filed the present criminal revision against the judgment dated 5.1.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby order dated 15.10.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh convicting the petitioner-accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months was upheld.

2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that on 28.1.1986 at 12.15 p.m., Government Food Inspector O.P. Gautam in the presence of Hari Singh inspected the canteen located on Plot No. 14, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, which was owned by one Dev. Accused Durga, who was employed as a servant of Dev, was found present in the canteen. On inspection, the Food Inspector found him in possession of 15 Kgs. of standard milk in Patila for public sale. After serving notice on him on Form, Ex. PA, 700 mls. of milk was purchased by him for analysis from the accused against the payment of Rs. 4/- vide receipt Ex. PB issued by the accused. The milk purchased was divided and poured in three clean and dry bottles in equal parts. Eighteen drops of formalin 40% were added as preservative in each bottle. Thereafter, these bottles were stoppered, labelled, securely fastened and then wrapped in strong and thick paper separately in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Seizure memo Ex. PC was prepared at the spot which was signed by the Food Inspector and other witnesses as well as attested by the accused. Out of the three bottles, two sealed bottles were deposited with the local Health Authority, Chandigarh. The third sealed bottle was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Chandigarh, who on analysis, vide his report Ex. PD found the milk to be adulterated as it was deficient in Milk Fat 4% and Milk Solid Not-Fat 20% of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of the said report, the complaint was filed against the petitioner-Durga and his co-accused, Dev, who was the owner of the said canteen. After recording the pre-charge evidence, charges were framed against both of them to which they pleaded not guilty.

3. To support the case set up by the complainant apart from Food Inspector O.P. Gautam (PW-1), Gangai Yadav (PW-2), official of the Local Health Authority, was examined. The documents relating to the despatch of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused were also placed on record. Food Inspector had proved the notice to the complainant Ex. PA, receipt Ex. PB, spot memo Ex. PC and report of Public Analyst Ex. PD.

4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the accused denied the prosecution allegations completely. Accused-Durga took the stand that he was not working as a servant in the canteen in question. While Dev took up the plea that he was not owner of the said canteen and has no connection with the said canteen. Thus, they pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in this case by the Food Inspector. In support of the stand taken, Nathu Singh (DW-1), was examined by them. In addition licence Ex. DA was produced by Durga in order to show that he was running Booth No. 10 located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh and as such has no connection with the canteen in question.

5. The trial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence accepted the evidence of the complainant and while rejecting the defence version with regard to Durga, petitioner-accused convicted and sentenced him as noted above. At the same time, as Dev was not present at the time when the canteen was inspected by the Food Inspector and sample in question was taken he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner filed Criminal A